User talk:Vanished user fijtji34toksdcknqrjn54yoimascj

Welcome!

Hello, Vanished user fijtji34toksdcknqrjn54yoimascj! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ryan Delaney talk 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Talk:Mathematics

Dear Ben: Well, someone got a spiffy "Welcome" above. Concerning Talk:Mathematics#Disambiguation text at top of article: Edit conflict, you raise points there that I believe have been worth further discussion. And the Talk p. is the place to discuss them. Despite the apparent un-resolution of the Math(s) section that leads into "Mathematics#Disambiguation text...", the Disambig question is distinct, though not necessarily dichotomous from it. I wrote a similar note to the other discussant. (Personal aside: This has not been a pleasant experience for me. C'est la vie.) Looking ahead, if there is no agreement, WP:RfC might be one way to proceed. I welcome your thoughts. If you'd wish ro post this or your own separate response on Talk:Mathematics, that would be fine too. Otherwise, I'll watch for your response wherever. My thanks. --Thomasmeeks 13:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (Typo Edit. Thomasmeeks 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Introduction to Evolution

Hi, Thanks for the suggestion on the Introduction to Evolution Entry. I have attempted to incorporate them into the article as best my skills can manage. There may be some confusion on one of your concerns. The article does not mention creationism. That series of commentaries by myself and Wassupwestcoast followed a rather irritating criticism that it should be more balanced by Kaypoh who opposed on those grounds. Needless to say, we will not be writing in a creationist section as per his request. If there are other concerns or suggestions please continue to share. Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems ... I wasn't sure if it was communication breakdown or not. The page is very messy --- I'm not very skilled on the formating end and just discovered the cool green checks that others are using to remain organized (somewhat too late). I'm not even sure if I am suppose to address the concerns or remain silent! Probably just making a mess of the whole process. Thanks for the productive criticism and guidance. Either way it ends, the article has improved as a result of the process; especially in regards to citation formats. Amazing how valuable the template was --- wish I had known before the process; it would of have made for a more positive presentation. I am a little upset with the accusation of misinformation over LaMarck; not really fair for that individual to make such a allegation when in fact that section was spot-on. It has been very challenging to keep it at an intro level and meet the demands of accuracy required for the FA status. It may not be possible. Again ... thanks for the encouragement ... cheers. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Hi,

Regards this edit, the judicious use of Redirect6, {{redirect6}}, could allow for both. WLU (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing redirects

Not a good idea for various reasons. —Viriditas | Talk 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for Formation and evolution of the solar system Andycjp (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning edit warring

Re:[1]: not exactly. The three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day, but rather an electric fence to stop edit warring. Reverting three times per day usually means it's time to take a step back and head for the talk page or dispute resolution, and repeatedly reverting three times per day is likely to lead to blocks. You may want to read our policy on edit warring, which is more general than the three-revert rule. Hope this helps. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you have in fact violated 3RR: Resotring original, as you observe in the summary, Reverting Saythetruth, Reverting again, Undoing again. Do you have some explanation for this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin myth

I'm simply using the terminology of the reliable source used and not trying to bend it to fit a convention that wikipedia has used. The context strongly suggests to me that it means the origin of the peoples, rather than the creation of the world. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, I've removed the linking, which redirects to "creation myth". Perhaps that is a good fix. --Merbabu (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Highest heaven

If you wish to create an article on this topic please feel free to do so.Andycjp (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Emmy Noether pic

Thanks for the note about the EN picture. Since the one currently in the article is more representative of the sort of images usually used to illustrate articles and bios about her, however – and because I think I'm reaching maximum brain capacity for that particular project, heh – I'm happy to leave it alone for now. Thanks again, though; perhaps it's something we can pursue in the future. – Scartol • Tok 11:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never pursued that sort of permission-to-use strategy for pictures, because the process appears to be rather lengthy and intricate – presumably for legal purposes. (More here.) You can try to track it down if you like, but I daresay the Fair Use image we've got at present will probably be fine. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 13:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I just want you to know that when I saw the word "myth" associated with the Christian creation account, an immediate revert and NPOV warning was a knee-jerk reaction on my part, because (1) the article has been vandalized countless times by people gratuitously adding the word "myth" to it in places where it is irrelevant regardless of one's convictions, and (2) while the vast majority of Christians do not regard the Genesis creation account as literally true, they would not call it a myth either. But upon review, I felt that the original version of the article was not much better, and the warning unwarranted either way. That's why I removed it from your page.

Your latest edit to the article has been modified by someone else before I even knew it was there. While I disagree with part of his edit summary ("Torah" is just a name, and is just as valid as "Pentateuch"), I believe the use of the term "account" instead of "myth" is more neutral.

Either way, please accept my apology for my initial reaction. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Genesis

Well, I just do not see any need to make the link more obvious. The sentence refers to the Genesis account of creation, and there is a link. I imagine anyone clicking on the link would expect to find out more about the Genesis account of creation. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. People eclicking on the link to Joseph will expect to be taken to an article on the Hebrew Biblical Joseph, not to a generic article on the name Joseph or a disambiguation page on different Josephs or an article on the husband of Mary. People are not so stupid as to think that in a sentence all about the Genesis account of creation, the creation link will go to an article on the topic of the genesis account of creation. It is what the sentence is about. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Astrology

I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pFTP

Hi, just saw your old pFTP screenshot (Image:Pftp-99.png). Have you considered creating an article about it? 203.211.71.146 (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There aren't many reliable sources out there that could be used to build the article up. At least, not that I'm aware of. Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

blahtex

It seems blahtex.org has gone done since last I checked it. I've since found out someone else has taken over development (http://gva.noekeon.org/blahtexml/index.html), but I'm wondering if you still have anything left from your mediawiki implementation. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reaction. The last version I have is dated 19 May 2006 and is against MediaWiki r14294 (version 1.7alpha). You can download it from http://developer.berlios.de/cvs/?group_id=4518 . Is there anything specific you would like to know? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Apéry's constant

Thanks for fixing the other i's; I only looked at the bottom of the Σ notation. My bad! Mouse is back 21:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)